Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

3. THE CONCRETE FEATURES OF THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN
RUSSIA, AND RUSSIA’S BOURGEOIS-DEMOCRATIC REFORMATION

“Despite the elasticity of the principle of ‘the right
of nations to self-determination’, which is a mere platitude, and,
obviously, equally applicable, not only to the nations inhabiting Russia,
but also to the nations inhabiting Germany and Austria, Switzerland and
Sweden, America and Australia, we do not find it in the programmes of any
of the present-day socialist parties....” (Przeglad
No. 6, p. 483.)

This is how Rosa Luxemburg opens her attack upon §9 of the Marxist
programme. In trying to foist on us the conception that this clause in the
programme is a “mere platitude”, Rosa Luxemburg herself falls victim to
this error, alleging with amusing boldness that this point is, “obviously,
equally applicable” to Russia, Germany, etc.

Obviously, we shall reply, Rosa Luxemburg has decided to make her
article a collection, of errors in logic that could be used for schoolboy
exercises. For Rosa Luxemburg’s tirade is sheer nonsense and a mockery of
the historically concrete presentation of the question.

If one interprets the Marxist programme in Marxist fashion, not in a
childish way, one will without difficulty grasp the fact that it refers to
bourgeois-democratic national movements. That being the case, it is
“obvious” that this
programme “sweepingly”, and as a “mere platitude”, etc., covers
all instances of bourgeois-democratic national movements. No less
obvious to Rosa Luxemburg, if she gave the slightest thought to it, is the
conclusion that our programme refers only to cases where such a
movement is actually in existence.

Had she given thought to these obvious considerations, Rosa Luxemburg
would have easily perceived what non sense she was talking. In accusing
us of uttering a “platitude” she has used against us
the argument that no mention is made of the right to self-determination in
the programmes of countries where there are no bourgeois-democratic
national movements. A remarkably clever argument!

A comparison of the political and economic development of various
countries, as well as of their Marxist programmes, is of tremendous
importance from the standpoint of Marxism, for there can be no doubt that
all modern states are of a common capitalist nature and are therefore
subject to a common law of development. But such a comparison must be drawn
in a sensible way. The elementary condition for comparison is to find out
whether the historical periods of development of the countries concerned
are at all comparable. For instance, only absolute ignoramuses
(such as Prince Y. Trubetskoi in Russkaya Mysl) are capable of
“comparing” the Russian Marxists’ agrarian programme with the programmes
of Western Europe, since our programme replies to questions that concern
the bourgeois-democratic agrarian reform, whereas in the Western
countries no such question arises.

The same applies to the national question. In most Western countries it
was settled long ago. It is ridiculous to seek an answer to non-existent
questions in the programmes of Western Europe. In this respect Rosa
Luxemburg has lost sight of the most important thing—the difference
between countries, where bourgeois-democratic reforms have long been
completed, and those where they have not.

The crux of the matter lies in this difference. Rosa Luxemburg’s
complete disregard of it transforms her verbose article into a collection
of empty and meaningless platitudes.

The epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Western, continental
Europe embraces a fairly definite period,
approximately between 1789 and 1871. This was precisely the period of
national movements and the creation of national states. When this period
drew to a close, Western Europe had been transformed into a settled system
of bourgeois states, which, as a general rule, were nationally uniform
states. Therefore, to seek the right to self-determination in the
programmes of West-European socialists at this time of day is to betray
one’s ignorance of the ABC of Marxism.

In Eastern Europe and Asia the period of bourgeois-democratic
revolutions did not begin until 1905. The revolutions in Russia, Persia,
Turkey and China, the Balkan wars—such is the chain of world events of
our period in our “Orient”. And only a blind man could fail to
see in this chain of events the awakening of a whole series of
bourgeois-democratic national movements which strive to create nationally
independent and nationally uniform states. It is precisely and solely
because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this
period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations
to self-determination.

But let us continue the quotation from Rosa Luxemburg’s article a
little more. She writes:

“In particular, the programme of a party which is operating in a state
with an extremely varied national composition, and for which the national
question is a matter of first-rate importance—the programme of the
Austrian Social-Democratic Party—does not contain the principle of the
right of nations to self-determination.” (Ibid.)

Thus, an attempt is made to convince the reader by the example of
Austria “in particular”. Let us examine this example in the light of
concrete historical facts and see just how sound it is.

In the first place, let us pose the fundamental question of the
completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. In Austria, this
revolution began in 1848 and was over in 1867. Since then, a more or less
fully established bourgeois constitution has dominated, for nearly half a
century, and on its basis a legal workers’ party is legally functioning.

Therefore, in the internal conditions of Austria’s development (i. e.,
from the standpoint of the development of capitalism in Austria in general,
and among its various nations in particular), there are no factors
that produce
leaps and bounds, a concomitant of which might be the formation of
nationally independent states. In assuming, by her comparison, that Russia
is in an analogous position in this respect, Rosa Luxemburg not only makes
a fundamentally erroneous and anti-historical assumption, but also
involuntarily slips into liquidationism.

Secondly, the profound difference in the relations between the
nationalities in Austria and those in Russia is particularly important for
the question we are concerned with. Not only was Austria for a long time a
state in which the Germans preponderated, but the Austrian Germans laid
claim to hegemony in the German nation as a whole. This “claim”, as Rosa
Luxemburg (who is seemingly so averse to commonplaces, platitudes,
abstractions...) will perhaps be kind enough to remember, was shattered in
the war of 1866. The German nation predominating in Austria found itself
outside the pale of the independent German state which finally
took shape in 1871. On the other hand, the Hungarians’ attempt to create an
independent national state collapsed under the blows of the Russian serf
army as far back as 1849.

A very peculiar situation was thus created—a striving on the part of
the Hungarians and then of the Czechs, not for separation from Austria,
but, on the contrary, for the preservation of Austria’s integrity,
precisely in order to preserve national independence, which might have been
completely crushed by more rapacious and powerful neighbours! Owing to this
peculiar situation, Austria assumed the form of a dual state, and she is
now being transformed into a triple state (Germans, Hungarians, Slays).

Is there anything like this in Russia? Is there in our country a
striving of the “subject peoples” for unity with the Great Russians in
face of the danger of worse national oppression?

One need only pose this question in order to see that the comparison
between Russia and Austria on the question of self-determination of nations
is meaningless, platitudinous and ignorant.

The peculiar conditions in Russia with regard to the national question
are just the reverse of those we see in Austria. Russia is a state with a
single national centre—
Great Russia. The Great Russians occupy a vast, unbroken stretch of
territory, and number about 70,000,000. The specific features of this
national state are: first, that “subject peoples” (which, on the whole,
comprise the majority of the entire population—57 per cent) inhabit the
border regions; secondly, the oppression of these subject peoples is much
stronger here than in the neighbouring states (and not even in the European
states alone); thirdly, in a number of cases the oppressed nationalities
inhabiting the border regions have compatriots across the border, who enjoy
greater national independence (suffice it to mention the Finns, the Swedes,
the Poles, the Ukrainians and the Rumanians along the western and southern
frontiers of the state); fourthly, the development of capitalism and the
general level of culture are often higher in the non-Russian border regions
than in the centre. Lastly, it is in the neighbouring Asian states that we
see the beginning of a phase of bourgeois revolutions and national
movements which are spreading to some of the kindred nationalities within
the borders of Russia.

Thus, it is precisely the special concrete, historical features of the
national question in Russia that make the recognition of the right of
nations to self-determination in the present period a matter of special
urgency in our country.

Incidentally, even from the purely factual angle, Rosa Luxemburg’s
assertion that the Austrian Social-Democrats’ programme does not contain
any recognition of the right of nations to self-determination is
incorrect. We need only open the Minutes of the Brünn Congress, which
adopted the national
programme,[1] to find the statements by the Ruthenian Social-Democrat
Hankiewicz on behalf of the entire Ukrainian (Ruthenian) delegation (p. 85
of the Minutes), and by the Polish Social-Democrat Reger on behalf of the
entire Polish delegation (p. 108), to the effect that one of the
aspirations of the Austrian Social-Democrats of both the above-mentioned
nations is to secure national unity, and the freedom and independence of
their nations. Hence, while the Austrian Social-Democrats did not include
the right of nations to self-determination directly in their programme,
they did nevertheless allow the demand for national independence to be
advanced by sections of the
party. In effect, this means, of course, the recognition of the right of
nations to self-determination! Thus, Rosa Luxemburg’s reference to Austria
speaks against Rosa Luxemburg in all respects.